Saturday Night Fish Fry

*
On account of I miss hearing from Gurlitzer lately, here is some bait to lure herself out of her lair. I'm pretty sure she was in our party at the Roosevelt University Auditorium in Chicago in December 1971 to hear the boys "premier" (or so they said) this very song: Mother.



Listen to the intro by poor Terry Kath: he sounds like his brain has been toasted to the size and mental capability of a raisin. I think it's hilarious that he start's picking out the stock lullaby theme (go-to-sleep, go-to-sleep...) as he's talking, then dribbles off like he's got the somnambulas.

As an adult I became pretty critical of Chicago because I felt they squandered their talent. I stopped following them after their third album, from which this is, er, from. (Not counting Carnegie Hall, which was their fourth.) I feel that none of the members improved an iota, technically, after "Chicago Transit Authority." Knowing little about the band, biographically speaking, I would assume that they were a victims of their meteoric rise to fame and hip-capitalist management. I can almost hear it: You boys could be as big as The Beach Boys if you let us help you write some "relevant" lyrics and pick out some nice "threads". We can also make your hair look sexier while still being hip! Yeah---and you can have all the "pot" you want for free! So I feel the fellas became too famous, wealthy, and high for their own good, and ours too. Maybe that's unfair, but I felt that much of their second album was pretty much only going through motions dictated by some insidious devitalizing force. By the third, it all sounded canned and labeled to me. Their lyrics explored the safe perimeter of pseudo-profundity, and the ensemble horn arrangements mostly sounded like rote variations or fantasias on riffs from Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon.

No one in the band was a virtuoso... and I feel that's actually OK. After all, Chicago was just a rock band... of which some of us had unduly high expectations if we were suckered by the most-of-them-studied-music-at-college marketing. (There's not a thing wrong with a good street-quality jazz-rock band in my book, but I wanted Chicago to exceed the high points of the first album every time out.)
 
The Carnegie Hall album is full of distracted, mediocre moments. But this track is not one of them, despite Kath's soporific introductory ramble. The composition isn't much but isn't bad either---head-shop-type lyrics about man's inhumanity to Mother Nature, changing meters several times before a 5/8 section that is supposed to "resemble industry, and money-making, and pollution". But what a surprise to my cynical 21st century earbones! I'd forgotten. Everybody sounds like they really mean it on this cut, especially during the 5/8 jam! James Pankow starts it with some frantic trombone that may draw from bop chops he learned at college. And Walt Parazaider, bless his heart, really takes his chances on tenor. Maybe he's just running up and down arpeggios from his methods book, but he just gives it up and dives in. Hard to believe this is the same guy who struggled with improvising Dixie and Battle Hymn of The Republic on flute a little earlier in the program. Then Pankow comes back at the end with quite a sensitive elegy-type solo that even made me feel emotional when I reheard it for the first time after buying the Rhino reissue several months ago. The whole collection, even with its flaws, is like an under-appreciated friend.

Mother, Chicago (1971, from "At Carnegie Hall," CD reissue Rhino R2 76174), via YouTube, embedded for noncommercial commentary, critical discussion, and educational purposes.

Agenda 21 and sympathy for the wingnut

*
The slang term wingnut, as I understand it, as I understand it, originally referred to someone who was considered to be deranged or seriously unbalanced. These would be people who expressed fervent belief in highly improbable phenomena such as abduction by aliens, Soviet mind-control infrastructure, or water fluoridation as a government plot to accomplish something other then reduction of toot decay. At some point it began to be associated mostly with right-wing paranoids and political reactionaries. People referred to as "Birthers," "Truthers," and "conspiracy theorists" would fall under the definition of "wingnut."

Liberals and moderates gleefully dismiss the concerns of wingnuts. TPM's new-media mogul Josh Marshall, born in 1969, has written derisively of the idea that any reasonable person could believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. An even more reality-based (and fiercer) commentator, the Jesuit-educated Charlie Pierce, routinely makes fun of wingnuts who fear that the UN's Agenda 21 will steal our golf courses. Even if we agree that Pierce is correct in his explicit critique that paranoia about World Government is a long-established reactionary article of faith and political lever for Republicans---and I do agree---it's still very much worth taking a closer look at possible explanations for that underlying fear.

Have you ever heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Me neither---not until last week:

The Trans-Pacific Partnership isn't getting enough attention (by design, it seems.) The idea is that a supranational body would be empowered to override national regulations if a country had a regulatory regime in, say environmental policy or copyright policy, that was more restrictive than other countries, it would be forced to bring its regime in line with the others.

At this point, 11 nations are participating in negotiations to establish the rules. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that this "partnership" would impose the most restrictive copyright laws, particularly the odious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, on all member nations, overriding any less-restrictive member-nation laws. The DMCA inserts copyright law into every transaction and purchase that involves computer software, and is responsible for postmodern customs such as electronic automobile keys that cost $300 and the outlawing of hacking consumer products that you have legally purchased.

The broader idea is the elimination of national regulatory authority over production and distribution of manufactured goods, natural resources and "intellectual property."  To be clear, this is not an instance of "free trade." The elimination of the public domain under copyright law is a restriction on trade. A bad one.

For purposes of this presentation, I'll go a step further to say that the "broader idea" is to eliminate the concept of national sovereignty wherever it interferes with the extractive corporate business model, whether the mission is to mine natural resources without restriction, lock up cultural resources permanently, or extort wealth out of a nation.

If you think the Trans-Pacific Partnership sounds like a skunk works for developing the procedural infrastructure for a "world government," you might be a wingnut. You might also be correct. I'm not prepared to say one way or the other at this point. But I am pretty sure that there is something underneath all of it that should be very concerning to everybody, including clear-eyed moderates and liberals.

Could a person be in favor of the Trans-Pacific Partnership while opposing Agenda 21? I'll bet a Republican could. The point would be to distract The Base (including people I might refer to as "innocent wingnuts") with a terror of the pan-racial "liberal" UN and its black helicopters. Meanwhile, transnational corporations could consolidate their control of the globe using national governments as their agents. But it's interesting to consider what might happen if wingnuts were to gain a clearer view of the real threat to their national sovereignty at the same time polite society tried to appreciate the fears of a wingnut.

Saturday Night Fish Fry

*
This is very cute. Be sure to watch the post "performance" "interview" with Dick Clark.



It may be my modern sensibilities, but I think that Dick Clark is being a bit of a dick with the boys, at least unintentionally. It appears there's a partial language barrier to which Mr. Clark may not be sensitive. However, he does seem to try to provide some context after the fact by explaining that big-time entertainers (such as himself) don't know their own itineraries most of the time.

I notice that the group spells the word "premiere" the way I remember learning it. For a coupla decades I had assumed that I'd just learned an incorrect spelling of the word in my remedial elementary school education.

I post this song with respect to Senor Rodolpho Murga, who taught me how to make pozole last weekend. Tonight I tried my own batch solo. Tomorrow will tell how it came out.

Farmer John, The Premieres (1 August 1964, live lipsynced* performance on American Bandstand, ABC-TV), via YouTube, embedded for noncommercial commentary, critical discussion, and educational purposes.
______________
*The fellas should have at least put someone on stage holding a tenor sax to produce a better illusion.

Wise sayings

*
In Free-Market America, money spends you!

Saturday Night Fish Fry

*
I'm happy that the robot oldies stations haven't put this jam into stress rotation up to this point in history. Nothing ruins an oldie like an oldies station.



These lads say "fuck the second and fourth---we're gonna hammer the first and third too, and maybe even the uh-four!" Even in 7th grade,  through the 2.5 in. speaker of my turquoise GE tabletop AM radio, I could tell there was something huge about the sound of this tune. But luckily we had a tube-driven, all-in-one Olympia entertainment console (with 9 in. elliptical satellite speaker!) so I could hear it up close in hi fi after school on the Dex Card show. It's a monster!

Try Too Hard, The Dave Clark Five (1966, 45 rpm single, Epic 10004 [US]*), via YouTube, embedded for noncommercial commentary, critical discussion, and educational purposes.

* I've got the disc squirreled away in my Felix The Cat-type doctor bag with a few dozen other 45s I picked up in thrift stores during the '70s for about a dime apiece.

Wake up, Useless!

*
It's time for another cartoon!



In this episode, Waldo and his entourage are pursued by the hapless stock Jay Ward mafioso One-Way Waldrip, who speaks in the Bogart-like voice often heard in other Ward features such as Super Chicken and Tom Slick.

The Wikipedia writeup on this series is flawed and ambiguous, but offers some clues about why my memory of this Hoppity Hooper is so fragmentary. First, the production history is odd. "Ring-A-Ding Spring" was produced by Ward studios in 1960, but when the series was sold to ABC, production went to Gamma Studios. The scripts and voices were all Ward, but the visuals were animated by the same outfit that did Tennessee Tuxedo, Underdog, and Commander McBragg. Hoppity didn't have any native second features, but was filled both by recycled shorts from Rocky and His Friends, The Bullwinkle Show, and some of the Gamma features noted above. The Rocky show, Bullwinkle, and George of the Jungle, by contrast, all had a suite of dedicated shorts (with some cross-pollination from Rocky to Bullwinkle). As a show, Hoppity had a weak identity, even at the level of kid experience. A Marxist media critic might say that this represents an inflection point where the American art of the "cartoon show" overtly succumbed to commodification. Ironically, that view could partially explain why Hoppity Hooper is not today commercially available as a boxed set: it wouldn't "package" well as a series. A related problem is that it might be difficult to acquire the rights to recreate a Hoppity package featuring shorts from other Gamma productions.

Anyway, YouTube lets us see episodes of this almost-lost series. And thanks to the good offices of a fellow traveler, cartoonly speaking, I momentarily have access to other episodes not currently uploaded to the web. The obscurity of Hoppity Hooper really enhances their "flash value" to me.

"Ring-A-Ding Spring, Part 3," Hoppity Hooper (1962, Jay Ward Productions), via YouTube, embedded for noncommercial commentary, critical discussion, and educational purposes.

The best-case scenario sucks anus

*
Ever since liberals discovered that President North Star isn't too damn proactive about being liberal---maybe around the time of his stimulus initiative---there's been an annoying denial meme. There are several flavors.

One varietal is that Obama is "naive" about bipartisanship and the good faith that supposedly validates it. This idea is based on the premise that "he doesn't understand that he's dealing with maniacs."

A related variant is that Obama has been a tactical blunderer, always pre-negotiating his policy proposals with himself in order to present a reasonable centrist position that everyone should be able to agree upon without rancor. His losing tactics are the consequence of his belief in the good faith of the "maniacs."

One other variation of the denial meme is that President North Star would really do this or that progressive thing, as we all wish he would, if only it were possible in the "present political climate." Unfortunately, the situation forces him to aim low.

As I say, all of these ideas are forms of denial by people grieving a betrayal of their expectations.

Obama is not naive about the politicians who are deranged by the fact that he's a (two-term) presidential usurper---he's the Jackie Fucking Robinson of major league politicians, and even had to deal with the indignities of racist campaign tactics from Hillary Rodham B. Anthony Sojourner Truth Isis Clinton and her loathsome taxidermied pachyderm dick of a campaign manager, Mark Penn. So, no, if he's betraying the expectations of liberals, it is not because he's naive about his political enemies.

Obama is also not tactically incompetent at politics. His mastery of retail politics is obvious, considering those three certain things he had to overcome in order to be elected to his present office---he's black, he has a Muslim-sounding name, and he's a Democrat in a bombastically conservative "post-911" political ecology. His approval ratings have soared the more he speaks like a progressive. Destroying the right-wing ideologues, rubes, and crypto-Confederates in Congress should be simplicity for a youthful, media-savvy Harvard-educated constitutional lawyer with considerable rhetorical skill.

And finally, no, Obama is not constrained by the "politics of the possible." (Refer to the previous two paragraphs.) He knows how to lead and he knows how to go over the head of Congress to the American public.

To borrow a phrase, I think these denial memes amount to "the soft bigotry of low expectations" by liberal Obama partisans. Here's what I think is the truth: President North Star is pursuing the exact policies he is looking for and, to a large extent, achieving them. Obama is arguably no more liberal than either Clinton---willing to embrace corporatism, globalism, and Reaganomics while surrendering the concepts of public goods and services, meaningful progressive taxation, and government as the necessary protector of American human rights.

As pertains to the sequester, but also to the longer political game over the next 4 years, I'm bummed to agree with Heather Digby Parton:

Look, he's never been straight with the American people about this, I don't care what anyone says. He never admits that he's put cuts to Social Security on the table, ( and even hardcore deficit hawks like Alice Rivlin admit that Chained-CPI is a cut.) He never says upfront that he's been willing to raise the eligibility age for Medicare. He always says he's willing to make "tough choices" and will do things "his own party won't like." He never comes right out and says what her means about "entitlement" cuts.

President North Star has already conceded on fundamentals. His fans will consider it a victory if we "only" have to settle for raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages, and indexing their benefits to the chained CPI.

Here's our partisan ecology today: Democrats are Republicans; Republicans are Confederates; the Tea Party is the Brownshirts; and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are the Democrats.